4 ms·

NOAA already provides the data to the general public, its all there, so I'm not sure about the "if" in your first sentence.

Retric 6y ago
It’s possible to get NOAA data directly, but in terms of actual use it’s very low, because of ‘poor’ execution. That’s working as intended.
- falcolas 6y ago
  Given that General Aviation uses NOAA weather data, that alone makes the NOAA data more useful than almost any other source. They also provide data to our fishing and ocean transport ships. And, it's been available to the public via the internet for at least two decades I know of at nws.noaa.gov (which now redirects to weather.gov). NOAA's data is a stupidly valuable resource, even discounting the resellers.
- 2trill2spill 6y ago
  You can just go to national weather service site which uses NOAA data and it's quite human friendly[1]. Also I don't understand how you can call the raw data not very useful, when it's literally the backbone of weather forecasting in this country. Every weather forecasting app uses the raw NOAA data, its there for you to use as well[2]. The hardest part of using the raw data is the learning curve related to meteorological programing, not getting access to the data. [1]: https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=40.76031000000006&lon=-111.88821999999999#.X9K8O8JME5k https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=40.76031000000... [2]: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/global-forecast-system/access/grid-004-0.5-degree/forecast/202012/20201208/ https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/global-forecast-system/access...
  - Retric 6y ago
    By use I am referring to people directly using NOAA or other government apps/websites to directly access it without intermediates. Other companies repacking that same data bring very little to the table. It’s the same issue where the IRS could in theory cheaply provide a user friendly tax prep software for ~1$ per taxpayer. However, tax prep software manufacturers have a massive incentive to avoid that. Further, they are going to lobby heavily for the issue which impacts themselves where most people don’t care about losing out in ~50$ per year.
    - 2trill2spill 6y ago
      > By use I am referring to people directly using NOAA or other government apps/websites to directly access it without intermediates. Other companies repacking that same data bring very little to the table. Huh? Did you even look at the links I provided above? They are literally what your talking about. One is a free government run website that any person can use to get a weather forecast, the other is a free government run website where any person can download raw weather data and use any way they like. So no intermediates or companies required.
      - Retric 6y ago
        > They are literally what your talking about. No. The second link isn’t something 99.9% of the general public will directly access. So in terms of directly communicating with the public without intermediaries it’s again useless to 99.9% of the population. The first link is useable but hardly designed to maximize views by the general public. This isn’t some major expense, even 3% of their budget spent on communicating with the general public would easily cover several clean apps etc. Instead, it’s clear their largely a giant subsidy for private profit. Other government agencies charge for this kind of large scale data access by private companies to lower costs to taxpayers by removing subsidies.
        2trill2spill 6y ago
        > The first link is useable but hardly designed to maximize views by the general public. So you admit that forecast.weather.gov is usable to the general public, but because it "doesn't maximize views" its some how invalidated? You said above that the public shouldn't need to use an intermediary to get a weather forecast and that's exactly what forecast.weather.gov is. And not only that but its faster and better than the for profit apps such as Accuweather, Weather.com, Weather Underground, etc. > This isn’t some major expense, even 3% of their budget spent on communicating with the general public would easily cover several clean apps etc. Instead, it’s clear their largely a giant subsidy for private profit. Other government agencies charge for this kind of large scale data access by private companies to lower costs to taxpayers by removing subsidies. 3% of a multi billion dollar budget is a lot of money also why would they waste money on a "several clean apps" as you put it when they already have a working weather forecasting app and that money could be used to address issues like the bandwidth one described in the article above, or updating weather models? It sounds like you just want a fancy new app even though they already have a working one.
2trill2spill 6y ago
Why are people downvoting my comment above? It's true you can download the raw NOAA data, just go here if you don't believe me: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/model-data/model-datasets/global-forcast-system-gfs https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/model-data/model-datas... And if your not able to use the raw data go to the NWS site which displays it in human friendly form: https://www.weather.gov/ https://www.weather.gov/
- donw 6y ago
  Didn't downvote myself, but if I had to lay money on it, I'd guess that you got downvoted for not providing links to the raw NOAA data? Sources FTW. On that note: thank you for providing those links! I learned something new today, and I can think of some uses for that data.
  - 2trill2spill 6y ago
    > Didn't downvote myself, but if I had to lay money on it, I'd guess that you got downvoted for not providing links to the raw NOAA data? Sources FTW. Yeah probably true, I didn't post a source because I thought it was common knowledge which in retrospect I'm not sure why I thought that. And I'm glad you enjoyed the links, when I first started looking into the raw NOAA data and PRISM[1] data it took a bit to figure out what to do with it. But I've found the GDAL library helpful for parsing various weather data formats, and there are a lot of them[2]. [1]: https://prism.oregonstate.edu/ https://prism.oregonstate.edu/ [2]: https://gdal.org/ https://gdal.org/
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - donw 6y ago
      > Yeah probably true, I didn't post a source because I thought it was common knowledge which in retrospect I'm not sure why I thought that. There's a name for this phenomenon! It's a cognitive bias called the "Curse of Knowledge": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge In a nutshell, we instinctively assume others know what we know. This was probably true when we lived in small tribes on the Serengeti, but not so much in the global information age. It takes practice, but you can grow the habit of always providing a little extra context without sounding patronizing, as well, at least in-person, a better sense for when people are following the conversation. What helped me grow this skill was lots of pair-programming, because that daily pair rotation forces you to be really good at context-sharing on the quick.

Retric 6y ago

It’s possible to get NOAA data directly, but in terms of actual use it’s very low, because of ‘poor’ execution. That’s working as intended.

falcolas 6y ago
Given that General Aviation uses NOAA weather data, that alone makes the NOAA data more useful than almost any other source. They also provide data to our fishing and ocean transport ships. And, it's been available to the public via the internet for at least two decades I know of at nws.noaa.gov (which now redirects to weather.gov). NOAA's data is a stupidly valuable resource, even discounting the resellers.
2trill2spill 6y ago
You can just go to national weather service site which uses NOAA data and it's quite human friendly[1]. Also I don't understand how you can call the raw data not very useful, when it's literally the backbone of weather forecasting in this country. Every weather forecasting app uses the raw NOAA data, its there for you to use as well[2]. The hardest part of using the raw data is the learning curve related to meteorological programing, not getting access to the data. [1]: https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=40.76031000000006&lon=-111.88821999999999#.X9K8O8JME5k https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=40.76031000000... [2]: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/global-forecast-system/access/grid-004-0.5-degree/forecast/202012/20201208/ https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/global-forecast-system/access...
- Retric 6y ago
  By use I am referring to people directly using NOAA or other government apps/websites to directly access it without intermediates. Other companies repacking that same data bring very little to the table. It’s the same issue where the IRS could in theory cheaply provide a user friendly tax prep software for ~1$ per taxpayer. However, tax prep software manufacturers have a massive incentive to avoid that. Further, they are going to lobby heavily for the issue which impacts themselves where most people don’t care about losing out in ~50$ per year.
  - 2trill2spill 6y ago
    > By use I am referring to people directly using NOAA or other government apps/websites to directly access it without intermediates. Other companies repacking that same data bring very little to the table. Huh? Did you even look at the links I provided above? They are literally what your talking about. One is a free government run website that any person can use to get a weather forecast, the other is a free government run website where any person can download raw weather data and use any way they like. So no intermediates or companies required.
    - Retric 6y ago
      > They are literally what your talking about. No. The second link isn’t something 99.9% of the general public will directly access. So in terms of directly communicating with the public without intermediaries it’s again useless to 99.9% of the population. The first link is useable but hardly designed to maximize views by the general public. This isn’t some major expense, even 3% of their budget spent on communicating with the general public would easily cover several clean apps etc. Instead, it’s clear their largely a giant subsidy for private profit. Other government agencies charge for this kind of large scale data access by private companies to lower costs to taxpayers by removing subsidies.
      - 2trill2spill 6y ago
        > The first link is useable but hardly designed to maximize views by the general public. So you admit that forecast.weather.gov is usable to the general public, but because it "doesn't maximize views" its some how invalidated? You said above that the public shouldn't need to use an intermediary to get a weather forecast and that's exactly what forecast.weather.gov is. And not only that but its faster and better than the for profit apps such as Accuweather, Weather.com, Weather Underground, etc. > This isn’t some major expense, even 3% of their budget spent on communicating with the general public would easily cover several clean apps etc. Instead, it’s clear their largely a giant subsidy for private profit. Other government agencies charge for this kind of large scale data access by private companies to lower costs to taxpayers by removing subsidies. 3% of a multi billion dollar budget is a lot of money also why would they waste money on a "several clean apps" as you put it when they already have a working weather forecasting app and that money could be used to address issues like the bandwidth one described in the article above, or updating weather models? It sounds like you just want a fancy new app even though they already have a working one.

2trill2spill 6y ago

Why are people downvoting my comment above? It's true you can download the raw NOAA data, just go here if you don't believe me: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/model-data/model-datasets/global-forcast-system-gfs https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/model-data/model-datas... And if your not able to use the raw data go to the NWS site which displays it in human friendly form: https://www.weather.gov/ https://www.weather.gov/

donw 6y ago
Didn't downvote myself, but if I had to lay money on it, I'd guess that you got downvoted for not providing links to the raw NOAA data? Sources FTW. On that note: thank you for providing those links! I learned something new today, and I can think of some uses for that data.
- 2trill2spill 6y ago
  > Didn't downvote myself, but if I had to lay money on it, I'd guess that you got downvoted for not providing links to the raw NOAA data? Sources FTW. Yeah probably true, I didn't post a source because I thought it was common knowledge which in retrospect I'm not sure why I thought that. And I'm glad you enjoyed the links, when I first started looking into the raw NOAA data and PRISM[1] data it took a bit to figure out what to do with it. But I've found the GDAL library helpful for parsing various weather data formats, and there are a lot of them[2]. [1]: https://prism.oregonstate.edu/ https://prism.oregonstate.edu/ [2]: https://gdal.org/ https://gdal.org/
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - donw 6y ago
    > Yeah probably true, I didn't post a source because I thought it was common knowledge which in retrospect I'm not sure why I thought that. There's a name for this phenomenon! It's a cognitive bias called the "Curse of Knowledge": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge In a nutshell, we instinctively assume others know what we know. This was probably true when we lived in small tribes on the Serengeti, but not so much in the global information age. It takes practice, but you can grow the habit of always providing a little extra context without sounding patronizing, as well, at least in-person, a better sense for when people are following the conversation. What helped me grow this skill was lots of pair-programming, because that daily pair rotation forces you to be really good at context-sharing on the quick.